Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    8,997
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by blackbird

  1. 54 minutes ago, Argus said:

    Some do. Some want to work, though. They simply don't have much in the way of skills. They also have VERY low standards in jobs, given what they've been doing and the long hours they've spent doing it. Thus they are willing to take all those low skilled jobs in Canada for less than Canadians, and will work harder and longer and in lousier conditions for those few bucks. So if you're a low-skilled Canadian, you suddenly have a whole bunch of new competitors for every job, competitors who will work ten or twelve hour days without complaint and be happy to do it, too. This allows employers to lower the wages further. Even less Canadians are now interested, given they can just go on welfare or pogey, and employers say "We need more immigrants or temporary foreign workers because Canadians won't take these jobs!"

    The solutions to this seem, to me, twofold. First, don't bring in low skilled immigrants. Second, require Canadian employers register the jobs they need with EI, and make Canadians in the area take those jobs rather than collect EI if those are the kinds of jobs they've done or can do.

    Bring in more immigrants from areas our own studies show produce economically successful immigrants, like Europe, the Philippines and India, and less from those areas which produce economically unsuccessful immigrants, like the middle east and China.

    https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/20/government-studies-immigrant-incomes-by-where-they-come-from.html

    If they bring in a lot of low-skilled workers willing to work slave hours, a contractor will simply hire them and lay off Canadian workers.  Why would he waste time with Canadian workers if he can get slave labour willing to work 14 or 16 hours a day.  A contractor can make much more money with slave labour.

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

    Liberals don't value fairness more than conservatives. They each just have different ideas of what "fairness" means.

    Liberals are more focused on equality, and more equal power and wealth etc between people to ensure that as many people as possible are given a chance to live good, healthy, happy lives free from oppression and suffering, while conservatives see some social hierarchy or social/economic stratification as natural and desirable because it rewards/incentivizes things like hard work, creativity and individual efforts. Many conservatives might even see some suffering as desirable and natural since it builds character, and "what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger".

    I just typed a long reply and hit some key causing it to all disappear.   Very frustrating. 

    I don't think you have it correct.   Conservatives believe in obtaining the same good things for people but just believe in achieving it in a different way.  Conservatives believe prosperity and happiness is best achieved by private enterprise.  They believe private industry is the best creator of wealth and jobs not government intervention and meddling.

    Liberals believe in big brother government, and tax and spend policies.  That is what Pierre Trudeau did and that looks like what Justin is doing now, by creating a big deficit.  They somehow have the idea that this will create a strong economy.  But it won't.

    Also Conservatives believe in personal freedom and respect for individual's rights while Liberals believe more in big government meddling in the social sphere.  Example is M103.

  3. 1 hour ago, hernanday said:

    " O’Leary also promised to accelerate immigration for those in key sectors by working with employers and HR executives "

    thestar.com speech at empire club.

    What do you people who are on the far right think about that?  More TFWs?  More immigrants coming in driving up housing prices?

    We have to have immigration that will fill good-paying jobs in order to pay taxes and keep our Old Age Pension, Canadian Pension Plan, Health Care, Education, etc. going.  Without sufficient immigration our social services will collapse.  The percentage of the population in the older age bracket is increasing and we may be heading for a crisis. Canada is not having enough children or enough young educated people to replace them.  But I like Kellie Leitch's proposal to interview every immigrant to make sure they will accept Canadian values.  I would go further and try to get as many as possible who would fit in with our Judeo-Christian culture.  That's my far right position.   I don't know if O'Leary is talking about TFW or regular immigrants.

  4. 13 minutes ago, Charlie said:

    Yes. UN isn't doing what it's supposed to do. But that doesn't mean US has the right to take an initiative unilaterally. It's like if police doesn't help you what you perceive to be is right, you pick a gun and start doing your perceived "right" thing on your own.

    What is "right to take action"?   That has no meaning in a corrupt world where many hostile powers exist and will do what ever they wish or what they think they can.  The reality is the countries that have the power, use it when and where they deem.  The U.S. doesn't report to some other power.  There are times they might try to get a coalition as for example with NATO to take some action, but they are not required by any law.

    • Like 1
  5. 5 minutes ago, Charlie said:

    Not that US has achieved anything. Assad is still there. Probably a few of his soldiers died. It would be much more impactful if there was a global consensus to take action against Assad. US, acting as a hegemon and taking actions single handedly, just sends the wrong message to rest of the world. 

    You forgot the supposedly international body, the UN, is paralyzed because Russia and China do actually Veto anything the U.S. wants to do.  In the past eight years under Obama, the U.S. has taken a hands off approach to Syria.  The problem is Assad in Syria is backed by Russia and Iran.   So there is no "international consensus possible on what to do with Syria.   The U.S. has not decided to go into Syria to try to remove Assad.   The big problem is Russia is there as an ally of Assad (and Iran). 

    Another problem in Syria,  some of rebel groups fighting against Assad are terrorist organizations themselves.  So there is nobody is sight the U.S. could trust to take over Syria.

    • Like 2
    • Downvote 2
  6. 2 minutes ago, Charlie said:

    It would be better to go through UN in order to have a consensus against a bad actor and a mutual agreement should be reached before taking unilateral actions. 

     

     

    The UN has been an abysmal failure in many cases in the world.  What has the UN done about the civil war in Syria?  There was no indication the UN was going to do anything at all about the chemical attack on innocent people in Syria.  The UN just talks but does little.  The UN also is unable to act because the Russia and China veto an proposed action. 

    • Like 1
  7. 4 minutes ago, Charlie said:

    You know that US is no more the lone super power. Right? Not that China or Russia are great alternatives,  it's probably better to have options for weaker countries to choose their poison. 

     

    OTOH, allied or westerners, whatever you call them, need to get over their privilege. They  don't run the world anymore. 

    No, their not going to give up their privilege.  Who will deal with the real threats in the world,   like N. Korea,  Iran, and terrorists?

    • Downvote 2
  8. 1 minute ago, Charlie said:

    You know that US is no more the lone super power. Right? Not that China or Russia are great alternatives,  it's probably better to have options for weaker countries to choose their poison. 

     

    OTOH, allied or westerners, whatever you call them, need to get over their privilege. They  don't run the world anymore. 

    What does OTOH mean? 

    There are many countries in the world that are bad actors who are a threat to the U.S. and it's allies.     It's not a question of who runs the world.

    Who has the strength to deal with the bad actors when they step out of line?

    • Like 1
    • Downvote 1
  9. 41 minutes ago, Charlie said:

    US has no right to attack Iraq or Syria. Why does US even try to act as if she has an exclusivity of defining humanity or responsibility to save the world.

    What they have done in Vietnam or Hiroshima (just two examples of many), I would say our world would be a much better place if US abstains from intervening in other countries' affairs.

     

    In that sense, I like Trump's America First approach. Only that he is doing exactly opposite of that by attacking Syria. 

     

     

     

    Being powerful means you get to call the shots.  

    The world has many countries that are hostile to the interests of the U.S. and it's allies.  Many bad actors scattered around the world.

    • Like 1
    • Downvote 1
  10. The U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk Cruise missiles against a Syrian airfield after notifying the Russians the attack would be coming, enabling everyone to get out of the airfield in time.  This was in reaction to the chemical gas attacks against men, women, and children a few days ago.  News reports say it is to send a message to Assad not to do it again.  Canada PM announced Canada supports this action.

    What happens next in Syria? 

  11. 3 hours ago, blackbird said:

    Sorry to differ with you betsy, but there are major differences between modern versions such as the NIV and the King James Authorized Version (KJV 1611).  You probably are not aware of the problem because most churches use the modern versions and promote them.  I may have to post some of the changes brought in with the modern (new age) versions such as the NIV, which is particularly bad.   There is a smaller part of christianity that believe the KJV (1611) is the only 100% accurate version for a number of reasons.  There is so much to it I can't go into it all here.  Get the book called "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.  There are strong advocates for the KJV 1611 and strong opponents who make their cases in books as well.  I read and studied the book I mentioned.  Also belonged to the Trinitarian Bible Society for over 30 years.  The have pamphlets on the subject.  There is also a KJV website with tons of articles.  Not trying to throw in a diversion to your discussion but just wanted to answer a point you made.  Blessings.

     

    15 hours ago, betsy said:

    My Bible Study is a King James.  But I also use NIV, NKJ ....as explained by the article, there's really no significant difference.

    Here is a website with some information about why the King James Version is the only version to use:

    http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/PDF/Defending_The_KJB.pdf

    This website has links to countless other websites on the subject of the KJV 1611:

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm

    • Like 1
  12. I see a problem with people starting new topics in their status update instead of actually Creating a New Topic.   When you do it in Status Update, nobody can quote a previous comment easily in order to discuss it.  One would have to type out individually a quote which makes it more tedious and difficult.  Why not consider just starting a New Topic under the appropriate heading.  Thanks.

  13. 11 hours ago, betsy said:

    My Bible Study is a King James.  But I also use NIV, NKJ ....as explained by the article, there's really no significant difference.

    Sorry to differ with you betsy, but there are major differences between modern versions such as the NIV and the King James Authorized Version (KJV 1611).  You probably are not aware of the problem because most churches use the modern versions and promote them.  I may have to post some of the changes brought in with the modern (new age) versions such as the NIV, which is particularly bad.   There is a smaller part of christianity that believe the KJV (1611) is the only 100% accurate version for a number of reasons.  There is so much to it I can't go into it all here.  Get the book called "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.  There are strong advocates for the KJV 1611 and strong opponents who make their cases in books as well.  I read and studied the book I mentioned.  Also belonged to the Trinitarian Bible Society for over 30 years.  The have pamphlets on the subject.  There is also a KJV website with tons of articles.  Not trying to throw in a diversion to your discussion but just wanted to answer a point you made.  Blessings.

    • Like 1
  14. On 2017-03-30 at 0:21 PM, segnosaur said:

    I think the bigger questions are... why did they stop him, and why did Comey actually volunteer to do so after so effectively torpedoing Clinton's campaign.

     

    Did Clinton torpedo her own campaign by deleting tens of thousands of E-Mails?  How is it OK to delete 33,000 Emails yet not OK for the FBI to announce they were investigating it?

    • Like 1
  15. On 2017-04-01 at 11:06 AM, dialamah said:

    It's not irrelevant; it's part of the nuance you refuse to admit.   The point is that younger Muslims, even second generation ones, who are more likely to consider themselves Muslim first are also the ones most likely to feel that Canadians do not accept them.  

    I bet if you asked Christians if they were 'Christian first' or 'Canadian first', the majority would say 'Christian first', because that is part of being Christian, as explained in this article:  

    Nobody is concerned by this, because most of us do understand that for religious people, God comes first.  This doesn't mean that they can't be loyal or committed Canadians; it just means they are religious.  

    And note even as this younger, second generation of Muslims are becoming more religious, they are also rejecting the themes of patriarchy and anti-homosexuality that their parents and grandparents were raised with.    So what we have, when we put all this 'nuance' together are second generation Muslims who are more religious than their parents, more proud of being Canadian than previous generations and who are more likely to reject patriarchy and to accept the prevailing social attitude towards homosexuality - which is acceptance.   Kind of like Christians, eh?   Christians who put God first, who are proud to be Canadian, who believe in the rights and freedoms Canada offers, who may or may not approve of homosexuality, and who may or may not embrace patriarchy as "God's way".   

     

    I take the broad statements of the people who carried out the survey and analyzed the results over the one-sided statements of an anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant commentator on a political forum.   

    Did you even note that Muslim Canadians are more proud to be Canadian than non-Muslims, and that pride has grown in the last decade?   Here, 'facts and figures' that you choose to ignore in favor of the single point you believe buttresses your anti-Muslim argument.    

    58dfe69d9222a_ProudtobeCanadian.JPG.ec2ca132744e14af5ea52062a9a7281c.JPG

    How is proud to be Canadian measured?  How are these numbers on the graph determined?  Who took this survey?

  16. 2 hours ago, segnosaur said:

    First of all, it would have been nice to actually give a few more details... like the company name, what they manufacture, etc. Was the billion a loan that's been paid back or grant?

    Secondly, it would also be useful to get a link to the actual article itself. News sources are dynamic... who knows if someone will be able to find your article if they don't see your post for a few hours.

    Lastly, keep in mind that The Rebel as a source is... a little questionable. I voted conservative in the last election, and even I think they may be taking things too far to the right. I'd prefer seeing a reference from a more mainstream source.

     

     

    Yes I do. Then of course he'd turn around and lie about it.

     

     

    Think you got that name a bit wrong.

    Yes, I should have given the actual www link.  But I thought it's easy to find.  Just Google the Rebel Media.  I do it all the time.  It is right there.  When you look at their website, you should see the video about the story.  I preferred not to mention the company myself.  It's not necessary anyway as the Rebel has it.  They give all the details as well.

    Don't believe everything the left says against the Rebel Media because you know they will dismiss it as extreme.  It's actually not extreme.  Quite factual but not politically correct.  They don't hold back on giving any information they uncover.  I have no reason for doubting their reporting.

    I had the pleasure of meeting Ezra Levant at a meeting in northwest B.C. before the last election in Sept. of 2015 at a large conference where he made a slide presentation on LNG and drilling for natural gas.  Very interesting.  Ezra is a very great Canadian in spite of what his detractors say.  The place was packed with several hundred people.  He talked to many people there as well before and after the presentation.  I'm sure he doesn't need the money but works hard to provide a service to Canadians to try to help Canada be a better country.  He has to pay the bills thou for what he is doing.  That's what I believe anyway. 

  17. 9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/fox-news-host-bill-o-reilly-loses-custody-of-his-children-after-alleged-domestic-violence-incident-a6904336.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/business/media/sexual-harassment-bill-oreilly-fox.html?_r=0

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/05/media/donald-trump-defends-bill-oreilly/

     

    I am sincerely starting to miss the role religion once had in our society.  The thing I did admire - at one time - about conservatives was the idea of principled and moral behaviour.  You can say that religion only covered up moral failings and propped up hypocrisy but we live in a world today with no shame.

    And - yes - it probably started with Bill Clinton and his much defended sexual harassment.

    Where is the shame today ?  Who are the moral leaders, I ask you...

    Sexual abuse and spousal abuse is as old as the hills I would guess.  Many accuse christian leaders, televangelists with being the biggest sexual offenders.  I don't think so.  There has been a significant number of priests in the Roman church who have been implicated in sexual abuse, probably because they take a vow of chastity and they are given an inordinate trust over people with the confessional.  They are naturally looked up to by their followers.  Chastity is an unnatural and near impossible vow to keep for many people. 

    As for domestic abuse, I believe the Canadian government spends several billions dollars a year on police services (plus provincial social services) to answer calls of domestic abuse.  I think we would find alcohol plays a major part in it and it does not favour one political party supporter over another.   Around 1900, the turn of the century and early 20th century in the U.S., alcoholism was a huge problem.  Men drinking in saloons was extremely common and drunkeness was widespread across the U.S. and of course followed by spousal abuse.  When men went home drunk, they often abused their wives.  Women formed organizations and fought it, a few even going into bars and smashing the bottles of liquor.  The problems and political pressure and marches by these women's groups led to prohibition.  Of course many illegal drinking holes and boot-legging sprung up run by organized crime.  But a major cause of the abuse has been alcoholism.  It is not sensible to claim or suggest somehow that it is linked to Trump supporters simply because one right wing radio personality was caught abusing his wife.  Spousal abuse crosses all party lines just as alcoholism does.

  18. Trudeau promised third world countries 2.65 billion to help fight the effects of climate change.

    He gave around 400,000 to third world countries to pay for abortions.

    He spent 127,000 on his Christmas holiday with the Aga Khan.

    He just committed a chunk of money to Syria.

    He "loaned" Bombardier about 400 million dollars and they gave their executives nearly a 50% pay increase.

    He gave Artificial Intelligence companies or research about 100 million dollars recenly.

    I am sure there is a long list of ways he has thrown money around.  Those just come to memory.

    • Like 1
  19. 46 minutes ago, dre said:

    I don't think it started with Clinton... Men have been treating women like shit for thousands of years, and religion has historically supported the idea that women are worth less. The more secular society becomes the better women are treated. Stories like this might make it seem like all hell is breaking loose, but just a short time ago women could not even testify against their husbands in court. There are still people alive today that lived in a world where women could not vote.

    Women are much better off in societies that are less religious. Billo is just a loser... no matter what happens in society there will always be some of them.

    I doubt your claim that religious are worse offenders than secular people, with the exception of Islam.   Christianity in the age of the apostles would have treated their women very well because christianity was new at that time and the bible teaches women must be treated with great respect.  I don't think you have any proof that women are better off in societies that are less religious.  Also what countries are "less religious"?   Russia passed a law recently making it legal to beat wives.

  20. 27 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

    Yes, it does....   otherwise it's not really free speech. 

    This is one of the controversial issues in Canada.  There are laws against so-called "hate speech" in Canada.  But a lot depends on how one determines what the law is saying. Theoretically the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression.  But there are some laws which seem to limit it in certain situations.   We will have to do some searching on the internet to determine exactly what the limitations mean.

    Quote

    "

     

  21. On 2017-03-17 at 6:40 AM, cannuck said:

    Minister of Transport, former astronaut Marc Garneau, announced new regulations today that severely restrict recreational drone use in Canada.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-r...nada-1.3327477

    "Under the new restrictions, which are effective immediately, recreational drone pilots are prohibited from flying their UAVs higher than 90 metres, within 75 metres of buildings, animals or people, or within nine kilometres of an airport. Night flights are also prohibited under the new restriction, which promises a fine of up to $3,000.

    Recreational users are also required to include their name, address and phone number with their drones"


    There will be a complete re-write of regs as the apply to UAVs overall, and IIRC, that will happen this summer some time. The one that will make city folk happy and pee off city toy drone owners is the 75 meters (250 feet) from buildings, people and animals. Pretty much kills ANY out-of-doors flight in any urban area. There is provision for commercial drones, that I assume must be licensed in some way.

    Aside from the obvious aviation related issues, it seems they have dumped the problems of privacy onto the aviation community by using the sledge hammer of aviation safety.  That was some pretty slick political move!

    The upside is that I should be able to get some really nice drones for the kids to use at the farm...wait a minute, I am within 9 kms of TWO airports. Oh well, haven't missed having one so far, so won't in the future.

    I have to admit I liked Marc Garneau even though I'm not a Liberal, but I think this is overkill.  75 meters from a building seems excessive and yes it will make it very difficult to fly a drone in any city or town.  Even if you go to a  park, many parks are small and 75 metres or 250 feet is quite a long distance. 

    The 9 km from any airport is also overkill.  That should be refined.  I don't know what kind of research they did to come up with that figure.  When was the last time any aircraft was flying below 500 ft even 5 or 6 km from an airport?  Many small towns or villages have a small airfield that is very lightly used located less than 9 km from town.  There should be special consideration for these airfields.  Aircraft should not be flying below 500 feet or more over populated areas.  I think there are regulations for aircraft as to how low they are allowed to fly over populated areas.  I wonder if he just made up that 9 km regulation on the fly without considering that small airfields near small towns are not the same as a large busy airport near a large city.  Small aircraft can also climb pretty fast when they take off and shouldn't be flying low several km from the airfield unless theyh have a reason.  I know there are crop dusting aircraft but this is a special situation which can be worked out.  The new regulations should be more flexible.  I would think some kinds of more flexible regulations would work if the government licensed recreational users.  They would then be more compelled to operate within the regulations if they were reasonable.

×
×
  • Create New...